PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Recording, Mixing, Performance and Production Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box? (Discussion) [Resolved]

Why do you need a DAW when you have Band-in-a-Box? What do you do in your DAW that you don't or can't do in Band-in-a-Box?

For example I use Cakewalk by Bandlab to automate multiple functions at a time on an audio or midi track. Cakewalk can simultaneously automate playback of volume, pan and mute on an audio track. At the same time I can automate playback of volume, pan, mute, reverb, chorus and expression on a midi track.

I started to make a list, but then thought... the answer is simpler than that. While BIAB does have specialized feature which make it totally unique compared to any DAW, it also does have some general DAW features. The reason I don't use them is 1) Limited Features, 2) awkward workflow, 3) lack of stability.

All of those limitations are handled by a professional DAW.

List of Reaper Features

For me, back in February when Audacity was my primary "DAW", I spent many hours trying to get RealBand to work; thinking that it would more tightly integrate with BiaB. I even posted a call for help here; Although I was/am greatful for the help, I/we were unsuccessful. We tried hard to get it to work.

Here is the thread:

RealBand Recording Problems

A buddy told me about Studio One, so I bought it and love it. It allows me to record my instruments, drag and drop audio, precisely control volume and has full export capability. So far it has everything I need and I've had zero problems with it.

I used Cakewalk Pro Audio, then SONAR, then briefly BandLab by Cakewalk. These are all the same DAW product as it has evolved.

The reason was that I learned it long before PG Music offered RealBand.

Now I use Presonus Studio One version 5 as my DAW.

The reason is that it is tightly integrated with my notation program, Presonus Notion 6, so when I wanted to change to a stable and future-proof DAW, and change to a notation program that was more current, user-friendly and stable with great sounds easily available to a composer, I chose this pair.

My reasons are not as likely to be your reasons. Preferences in workflow would normally be in consideration, too, so pick what works for you. No one has yet written the perfect software tool to do everything, so choose those tools that work best for you. One tool I still use frequently is a stereo Wave file editor, Adobe Audition. Yes, I could do this function in a DAW or other programs, but I learned this one over two decades ago, also. It's just a comfortable fit. Sometimes that's the only reason I can give you: it works, it's easy, and I'm fine with things as-is.

This question to me is a bit like why buy a screwdriver if you have a hammer. One could use a hammer to drive in screws or for that matter a screwdriver to hit in nails. But and it’s a big BUT to use a tool made for specific tasks makes the job simpler, more efficient if not better.

For years I used various versions of Sonar then when things were looking dicey with Cakewalk I got into Reaper as well as Cakewalk by BandLab. I tended to use Cakewalk for MIDI as I really understood MIDI operations in that Cakewalk. I used Reaper for mixing as that DAW provided advantages in that area.

As I got on and learnt more about Reaper’s scripting and other flexibilities I am slowly but surely tending to go to Reaper for all my DAW needs. In Reaper it is easy to create menus and possible to design tools for specific functions making Reaper more flexible than Cakewalk (IMHO)

I use BAIB to design, layout and input the chords and various instruments for a song as that to me seems the best tool for that job. I guess I could do this in Reaper or Cakewalk but it would be nowhere near as good nor efficient. I could use BIAB to mix and record the extra bits I might want to add but once again to me would not be efficient.

In Reaper for example it is extremely easy to adjust the play rate of a piece or have the levels of various parts move, or manipulate panning on the fly. Whatever takes your fancy. It is also fairly easy to remove unwanted noise and things like that. This goes on and on.

The right tool for the right job it was my attitude all my working life so why not for music.

My thoughts
Tony

THUMPER.

did you study the realband manual and i think there are vids now on setting up realband. ??
rb works for me and lots of people.

i think the issue is rb can sometimes be 'fiddly' to set up depending on the audio interface. the KEY is setting up the driver prefs correctly.

All.

my preferred combo is reaps//rb//biab. done 90 songs with the combo. i use the strengths of each.

it has to be said that the more one 'plumbs the depths'
of a music software , the more one will get out of it.
and bb and rb are very deep for example...as is reaps.

haveing said that i'll mention a few things i really like
in reaper ,..
(and this is not to slam bb or rb that have their own strengths which i love and use all the time.).

so reaper...
1. i love the main display showing all the traks.
2. ditto for the workflow eg moveing 'clips' around/editing etc etc.
3. various operational stats like latency and cpu and disc and plug in stats etc.
4. the free jesusonic plug ins included and other plug in
features eg i can use pg dx plus with vst's.
5. the small footprint and portability and how reaps runs on a pc with no probs/lagging etc etc. also runs on various OS platforms.

i could go on...but the above are just a few reasons.
musicstudent pointed to a full list of features on reaper.

best

om

I'm kind of like justanoldmuso
'maybe' start in Biab, if not and I have a strong idea of what I want and plan to Generate just to fill in some stuff (which is way more likely around here) I just start right out in RB.

Generate what I need and time-sync other stuff.

If I'm just tinkering around, I'll try various chords/style combos in BiaB to try to find some kind of hint that inspires an idea. Same way I use any loop/generate/pattern software. BiaB is more efficient at that than RB.

But then once I have the idea I get out of BiaB so I get more control, even though it can be more work. I enjoy that kind of work way more than dealing with the leaves in the fall. <grin>

If I need something RB doesn't do I do not hesitate to move to Reaper, or others.

Mostly it's just figuring out the workflow that works best for you.

I cut my teeth on Roland software and Powertracks, so the workflow in RB is just familiar to me, & I work where I am comfortable until I have to move on.

Kind of like when I built houses. Get as much done on the ground as you can.
When you need to get on the roof, well, you move up to the roof.

I'm comfortable in PT/RB, but realize I sometimes need to get on the roof.
Not sure where BiaB fits into that scenario, maybe tinkering with floor plans before starting to build the house (?)

I started with Dr T's sequencer back in the Atari days, then went to Cakewalk Pro Audio, Sonar, then finally to Studio One Pro 5.5. Thus I am very familiar with DAWs.

I agree with Jim on the many aspects of using a DAW. In fact I get out of BiaB as soon as I can and go straight to my DAW.

Tony has the right answer. A DAW and BiaB are two different tools.

I do not like to use RealBand. It doesn't fit well in my workflow. It is not that RB is a bad DAW; it is not and many use it as their only DAW. I just don't want to spend time learning all of the intricate workings of RB when I will not use it much. I must say that the few times that I have used it RB was stable.

Another reason that I don't stay very long in BiaB is the VST loading times. When I boot Studio One Pro 5.5 it only takes a couple of minutes to read all of my VSTs and VSTis. Having BiaB load them took over a half an hour. I am not putting the blame on PGM, it is just BiaB was not meant for that kind of usage.

In summary I hope BiaB stays focused on being the best backing track generator and doesn't become more like a DAW.

YMMV

I started with Dr T's sequencer back in the Amiga days, then went to Cool Edit Pro, which became Adobe Audition, then finally to Pro Tools. Thus I am very familiar with other DAWs.


Same. BIAB is just my tool to get the layout or template of the song complete.

Back in Feb, I consulted every resource I was aware of including videos. And you, rharv and MarioD helped as best you could but to no avail; thanks for trying. The fact that only 3 tried to help, out of a reported 36,433 members tells me that the RB userbase is either not large or not that motivated. Meanwhile, Studio One worked instantly and there seems to be a healthy group of S1 users here. One has to use the tools that work.

I will say that I hope that the programming resources directed toward RB do not inhibit future growth of the flagship program BiaB.

Tony (Teunis) presents a great analogy in terms of why it may be a better idea to use BIAB rather than a DAW for many tasks one encounters in song creation. Here's my take on his analogy:

<< Why buy a screwdriver if you have a hammer? >>

as an analogy to;

Why buy a DAW if you have BIAB?

I use a screwdriver many times to drive small nails, make a punch mark, tap pieces in place etc. For small instances where a tap is sufficient, the screwdriver gets the job done as efficiently and quicker than I can fetch a hammer for the small job.

It's the same with BIAB. Tasks like cut/paste, comping, volume automation, panning, adding some effects, audio recording, MIDI recording, cross-fades, fade-in, fade-out, inserting silence, muting, trimming intros, trimming outros, arranging, transposing, harmonizing, transcribing, extracting stems, time shifting audio, convert channels (mono/stereo), add/delete bars, audio punch in/out, bussing, bouncing tracks, sound on sound recording, move/copy MIDI/audio, normalize tracks, fix tuning, time stretch and pitch to name a few tasks BIAB can do and it shares with DAWs.

Many times, and in my case, more often than not, I can complete the tasks from the list above quicker and obtain results that are indistinguishable from doing the task exporting tracks out and completing them in a DAW.

I'm not suggesting that BIAB has obsoleted DAWs for music production but neither is pro quality music production unobtainable using BIAB if by-passing a DAW during the creation process. If a user doesn't have a DAW, there's no rush to go and acquire one.

I think a lot depends on how you 'grew up' with BIAB. I started on floppies and midi only and got PowerTracks bundles with BIAB for free.

Learning to use both programs I found some functions not available in BIAB were easily managed in PT. So my workflow was get as much laid down in BIAB and then move to PT to produce midi backing tracks for the duo i played in.

Since then BIAB has acquired many many more functions, but so has PT in becoming RB. Building on my skills with PT, its natural for me to use RB for 'heavy lifting'. RB is still for me, more transparent and obvious than BIAB. Legacy track? Melody track? soloist? utility track? no need to search - all the tracks are in front of you.

I know it's second nature to Jim and Charlie to stay in BIAB but for me RB is so much easier. Nothing hidden, fx easily added, a mixer that looks like a real life mixer..... and all the functionality of BIAB if i need it.

so with RB as my DAW it's a workflow i prefer. and if i get stuck, the program is so easy and familiar I can usually work out how to do things. but not always - and that's why the forum is so useful!

Having said that you use the right tool from many choices, I stay in BIAB as long as possible. As a composer I make a lot of changes before I take a song into production.

Simple answer is BIAB is NOT a DAW! And, Realband is NOT a feature-rich, modern DAW. Realband does not compare favorably to any of the modern DAWs available today. The one thing it does is support RealTracks but when you realize it doesn't even respect BIAB bar settings, frozen tracks, etc. you see it is not even useful in your BIAB workflow!

BIAB is absolutely brilliant at generating tracks from the awesome RealTracks library. And that is enough! I get in BIAB and out to my DAW ASAP!

Like many others
BIAB only as long as I need. Mostly real tracks. Almost zero midi.
The DAW does the rest

in the spirit of lively friendly collegial debate lets look at some pg users who use the 'free' REALBAND (RB). ie 'the other side of the RB coin" as it were.
(and lets not forget a new user can get a pak under 100 buckys with both biab AND RB. some competing software with only daw features can cost much MUCH MORE.)

1..the very talented long time pg user Joanne Cooper who i respect highly.
she is a long term RB user who has posted on her site and the pg forums about how she uses RB as a DAW. with various articles etc etc. LINK>>>

https://joannecooper.co.za/home

one of her articles is titled 'eight reasons RB is her daw of choice'.
i agree particularly about the 'no dongles' aspect. i also dislike them and will never EVER use a product that employs them cos ive seen too many people have issues sometimes.

https://www.joannecooper.co.za/blog/blog/eight-reasons-why-i-as-a-band-in-a-box-user-use-realband-as-my-daw-of-choice

2..pg user RHARV was kind enough to allow me the other day to listen to one of his productions done using RB. count me highly impressed….a top flight major studio i feel couldnt have beaten the production quality and dynamics etc etc. and RHARV is another pg user i highly respect.

3..moi. ive done 90 songs using biab/reaper and YES RB included as my go to software combo to do songs.
and ive forgotten how many 'demos'.
i play to the strengths of each of the 3 bb/rb/reaps.
(12 songs i have posted in the pg user showcase and on soundcloud see my sig at the bottom.…ill let others determine whether my crazy songs are good or not….lol..my 'thing' is the fun of doing songs..good or bad.).

in order to be fair and balanced i have to say RB has many nice daw features imho , BUT one MUST be willing to plumb its depths. this is the crux of it.

in addition…yes some might see it as an 'ugly duckling' BUT as my granny might have said 'beauty is often skin deep..its what is inside thats important'.

fwiw i just posted in the RB wishlist forum my RB wishes for 2023.
and if one goes back in that forum ive posted many past wishes.

in conclusion i'm sure there are pg users that use RB other than us 3 posted above.

WHY HAVE I TAKEN THE TIME TO MAKE THIS POST ?

cos it troubles me that a new pg user might dismiss RB. too easily. i also want to see the RB user base grow and RB prosper.
IS RB PERFECT ?..NO ! but ive found other competing products arent often perfect either.

let me say also...in the past ive had 'big lads' i met say to me 'REALBAND' or "POWERTRAKS" never heard of it..;.looking down their noses in the process UNTIL
i showed them several of the features and watched their eyes 'bug out' lol.

back to your regular programming ..lol.

happiness to all.

om

ps Mario i still have here my old 'sequencer one' diskette..ah those were the days...lol.
ps teunis. many good points.

While RealBand and PowerTrack Pro have their advocates I hope the discussion doesn't linger on those programs for a couple of reasons. First RealBand and PowerTrack Pro are PG Music's DAW offerings and I don't want this topic to become a discussion of PG Music DAWs versus all the other DAWs out there. Second the programs are only available for Windows so Macintosh users are left out of the discussion.

Some of you mentioned you are more comfortable or use to performing certain tasks in your DAW versus Band-in-a-Box. I understand that as I normally don't like getting out of my own comfort zone.

Bob Calver brought up an interesting thought. He mentioned "growing up" with Band-in-a-Box so he is comfortable using the program. I think experience using ANY product or program breeds comfort. Once you are comfortable with a program you naturally prefer other products that are similar and operate in a similar manner.

I believe one reason some people have difficulty with Band-in-a-Box is they are comfortable using a DAW. They believe Band-in-a-Box is a DAW so they expect BiaB to work similar to a DAW. Related from a user interaction standpoint is that there is really no other program to compare Band-in-a-Box against.

IT IS NOT THE TOOL, IT IS THE PERSON USING THE TOOL.

I yelled that because it is the truth. It really doesn't matter what your tools are but the experience behind the person using it. Many tools are job specific while others have a few "side" functions. Yes a screwdriver can be a hammer for small nails, or an awe, or a small pry bar but they are not the optimum tool for those jobs. However they may get the job done.

All powerful pieces of software have learning curves. BiaB, any DAW, Scaler, etc have huge learning curves IF you want to dig deep into the program.

Any workflow is great IF it works for you. Charlie, RHarv, Matt, Joanne, and others have dug deep into BiaB and/or RB; thanx GOD they are willing to share their information. I use BiaB as a scratch pad figuring out chord progressions and styles. Sometimes I will use either the Melodist or the Soloist to give me some ideas for leads. I do all of my heavy work in my DAW, Studio One Pro 5.5 which I have dug deeply into. I have no desire to dig deeply into BiaB or RB as I can do many if not all of those things Charlie and others have listed quicker and easier in my DAW. Why? Because I know my DAW as you know your tools. This workflow works for me and may not for others.

As I stated it is the tool user and not the tool.

Your point is true but it is not the complete truth! Some tools are better than others and it is perfectly valid to have that discussion. Every piece of technology is subjected to reviews and comparisons with other implementations so potential users can can make a more informed decision.

The whole argument that a poor tool can be used to create quality results does not change the FACT that there are much better tools available.

And the issue is a LOT deeper than just deep diving into a poor tool to learn to work around it's warts. I believe it is FAR better to simply find a better tool!

It’s funny how many people seem to be either afraid or not interested in learning a new skill. When I first started work as a trainee after leaving school I went to a training school where about 50% of our time in the first year was about how to correctly use tools. Use the correct tool or best tool for the job.

With producing music there are many alternatives into how to get a job done. I recall a little session I had with a fellow musician who said you can’t use BIAB to do that and I showed him how. He said I have had BIAB for years and I didn’t know that. I said go to the PG site there is a plethora of great videos there to demonstrate aspects of BIAB. Go find Joanne Coopers stuff or Henry Clarke you’ll learn heaps. “Oh I don’t have the time for that”. My answer then I can’t help you.

I find learning is what it is about. I spend time every day looking and reading stuff on these forums. I learn by doing so. I reckon I still spend 50% of my time learning new skills or finding ways to make better use of what I know.

I said earlier in these posts it is about using the best or most appropriate tool for the job. In music production this can be very subjective however without enough learning how can one make the best choices.

Learn!!! It is fun.

My thoughts
Tony

I agree and stated in the somewhat evasive (now that I have gone back and looked) statement in the first paragraph "Yes a screwdriver can be a hammer for small nails, or an awe, or a small pry bar but they are not the optimum tool for those jobs. However they may get the job done."

Tony, with all do respect I don't think it is about being afraid or not interested is learning new things. I know I have learned a lot about BiaB and RB by being active on these forums. Its about using the tools that are right for you.

Why should I learn any other DAW when I am happy and challenged with the one I have now? Why should I learn or use what I know about in BiaB when I can do it easier and quicker in my DAW? I could be spending that time composing and/or playing.

I am also a constant learner. I have and/or in the process of learning about a number of programs and sound sources that can help me make better music, I hope. None of them are about BiaB or DAWs as I am happy with those as I use them now. That is not to say that I am static with them. I look at all of the options available to me each year and learn the ones that I find will help me. Things like the micro-chords (I hate that name!), globally setting the loop function to one, trying the VST, etc.

Peace and YMMV

Add a notation app to that and it’s three tools. It all depends on the project.

For me, it may start in Sibelius (by a client) and end up in Notion. Mine might start in Encore and/or Finale and get synced to Digital Performer via Rewire—even though the code is depreciated, RW still works on the MacOS. Others begin and end in DP — or GarageBand/Logic/Audacity/Reaper/Bitwig/Zoom and end in DP.

Very few of my own projects never begin in BIAB but many of my clients’ do. Normally, if I begin in BIAB, I finish in it but not always.

Back t the hammer and screw metaphor: Nearly all AV presentations have video elements mixed with slides or are straight video. I do these in Premiere Elements or FinalCut ProX depending on complexity — easy peasy. However, yesterday, I started a 2-hour project that is slides and music only. I fired up PE and was 10 minutes into it when I realized that, though I can do it as a video, PowerPoint was the far superior app—I’d not used PP in 20 years but it was easy to get back in the saddle.

Again, it all depends on the project. I do this for a living.

Ol' MAC had a couple sayings that still stick with me;

1. Run what you brung

2. If it sounds good it IS good

My input is that if you have something that works for you, use it, but don't be afraid of learning other new tools (or remembering old ones as Mike Halloran pointed out)
The important part is number 2 (yeah I said number 2) .. if the end result sounds good, it doesn't matter what you used or how many extra features it had.

Listening to a song I couldn't care less whether it was made in DAW A or DAW B

I think it’s interesting just how much we all have in common here.

1. Everyone here is speaking their own truth as to what tools they use
2. Everyone here either built the tool they use or was introduced to it by someone or something
3. Everyone has a story on how they arrived at BiaB
4. Everyone has a story on how they arrived at music
5. Everyone is somewhere on the music proficiency spectrum(s)
6. Everyone is on a dynamic and limited time continuum

Because of #6, the tool(s) you use today may not be the tool(s) you use tomorrow. Or tomorrow you may have more tools in your box than you do today.

I think everyone can agree that (in general) a hammer is better at driving and removing nails than a screwdriver. And (in general) a screwdriver is better at inserting and removing screws than a hammer. If you know how to use both.

But when you consider complex software tools that are revised periodically and must operate on your particular hardware platform and must fit within your workflow and must be at least somewhat comfortable and efficient to use, well then, the simple analogy of the hammer and screwdriver begins to break down.

Another factor at play in considering a new or different software tool is “herd mentality”. Unless you are a maverick, most likely you will avoid adopting a tool that no one else is using for fear of having no help when you need it. Instead, you will choose to use the tool that many are already promoting and using. And then collaborating with others may also influence your choice of tools.

I would say that most if not all of us want to become more proficient in music while maintaining or increasing the level of satisfaction and fun we get from music. So to springboard from Teunis’ thought we should continue to learn. This requires researching, considering, pondering, testing, and adopting new tools as we are able. In a nutshell . . . grow, adapt and be happy

Thumper.

let me say i really liked your last post above in this thread.
particularly 'So to springboard from Teunis’ thought we should continue to learn.' etc etc.

btw i'm a maverick…lol.

happiness

om

The question "Why use a DAW when there is BIAB" literally depends on how BIAB is used in a workflow. I'm not speaking of the release year or program pak, but rather if one stays in BIAB as long as possible or if they rough out a song and render tracks and do the majority of arrangement and production in a DAW. The rendered output from each method yields dramatically different results.

Remaining in BIAB can take full advantage of the BIAB algorithm, multiple tools, techniques and features that are used to develop the structure, song form, instrument choice and arrangement, editing and effects.

Likewise, by quickly generating and rendering audio, the structure and song form are developed but most, if not all, of the more advanced programable or automatic tasks that are possible from using BIAB's tools, features and processes and allowing the BIAB algorithm to initiate commands and functions are lost to the user.

It's possible that in a single bar on a single track for the BIAB algorithm and settings to:
. Change from one RT instrument to another
. Alternately, have two or more instruments play simultaneously
. Change styles
. Change the sub-style
. Modulate the key
. Adjust the tempo
. Generate specific ending audio chosen for instrument 1
. Generate specific intro audio chosen for instrument 2
. Fade out the first instrument
. Fade in the second instrument
. Crossfade the two instruments
. Change the panning setting
. Change the volume level
. Repeatedly regenerate these actions and settings with the Generate and play icon.

In BIAB this is automatically initiated with a click of a button.

In a DAW, each step is done manually because most likely the two instruments are on separate tracks. In addition, RealTrack instrument changes or regenerations require going back to BIAB and requires additional rendered tracks for the different styles.

As longtime Mac users Logic Pro X was to us the obvious choice based on the following:

- $199 and free upgrades for life.

- A huge sound library and they are always free. New ones added all the time.

- A world of built in plug-ins and they are always free

- Groove track ... name a track the groove and lock all others to it. GREAT way to easily double drum components and more.

- Great pitch editor although I do not pitch change vocals.

- The automation lanes for FX variables, volume and panning are extremely easy to use.

- Dragging and dropping into Logic from BiaB is simple and quick.

- Virtual instruments galore -- amps/speakers/mics, pedals, keys and on and on. Free for life.

- Drummers that can be set up in around a zillion ways

- Graphically edit MIDI events (all kinds of midi stuff but that's not my cup of tea ... but I bet it's good).

- Customize the control bar and toolbar with additional buttons and controls.

- Customize key commands

-Customize your workflow using screensets.

- Large free loops library

- User friendly interface and it's hard to imagine what you could want that it doesn't do.

- Turn on a "simplified" mode that reduces the complexity of operations.

- And a host of functions I've never used as they are way above my mixing pay grade.

Oh, did I mentioned the Mac version of BiaB doesn't have RealBand? But we hear amazing productions here done with it.

Bud

4T(The Total Talent Team) JnB.
(kudos to you re your songs btw…and Janices great vocs.)

there are serious questions ive been itching to ask seasoned mac users like your good selves for sometime in case i found a deal on a refurb older intel mini or a newer m1 mini for cheap as the m2 comes out from my reading.

1.. yes logic is a very nice product. so my question is …
why , in that case,... do mac users get D Performer ? or Studio One for Mac ?
or others like Bitwig, Audacity or reaper etc etc. ??
cos i'm confused on this point.
frankly i feel a genius like G Martin would do hit songs on anything ..
eg G Band also looks good to moi. who can complain for free..!

2.. second question…
do you feel that the iphone marketing strategy will be followed with the mac mini. ie using the new 'm' silicon 2023 a m2 mini, 2024 a m3 mini, …
2025 a m4 mini….etc etc ? if so this opens up for 'cheapies' like me to 'stay behind the tech curve' and get the previous generation. ie refurbs//off lease used.
frankly i'm very curious due my background to see if the 'm' silicon plataeus at some point in processing power.
but it wouldnt matter much to me as an m2 would prolly keep me happy for a looong time.

thanks and looking forward to your answers cos the 'm' silicon is getting me v excited.

happiness and best to you both.


om

I'm sure Logic Pro is a fine DAW with many great tools built-in. Every DAW has its strengths and ease of use is one strength I've read people comment about Logic Pro time and time again.

But Band-in-a-Box also has many built-in tools. How easy is Band-in-a-Box to use? It automatically performs audio clip crossfades. The selected style automatically selects track instruments, track volume level, track panning, track equalization and track reverb. These are all simple tasks that must be performed many times in most DAWs but are automatic in Band-in-a-Box.

With RB is not being available to Mac folks we have no empirical basis for comparison other than what we read from folks who use it. We do hear some fine RB productions posted here.

Bud

Ah, luckily this hasn't degenerated into the Real Band Users Versus the World of so many threads.

For me the journey has been Mono reel recorder, stereo cassette, 12 track recording studio, 4 track demo recording studio, 24 track recording studio, four track cassette, eight track cassette, Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.3 and settled with Reaper...each has been fun and relatively intuitive to use or record to. It tried using BIAB to record etc. but it was a clumsy mess in my hands.

BIAB is great for what I want from it...drums and occasional other instruments that I can use to build a song upon in my DAW of choice, (which isn't BIAB or RB).
Fun to experiment in BIAB, lots of options too but it is, FOR ME, too clunky to use as a DAW.

BIAB with multi track drums, Song Form/structure as well as the DAW Plug In, (and the development of that says reems about the perspective of the company), reach peak coolness for my needs...
...any/everything else peripheral/occasional useful/diverting.

I find the best sonic quality comes from exporting untreated .wav files, centred and mono where appropriate and then adding them to my DAW. I don't drag them in via the DAW plugin because I get at least one glitch with each project.

Tools for the user, work flow for the worker. Each to their own in this privileged, hobby enabled western world.

Re…REALBAND (RB).

well…lol…certainly, over the years, ive done enough for the cause , in spreading the rb (and powertracks) message…including to big rigs where i would take my 'ruff demos'….who often 'bugged out' after seeing what could be done for a v small investment in pg products.

what i mean is for someone starting out the under 100 buckys pg plus pak is one hey of a deal for biab AND rb…. and the cost of powertraks and upgrades is a superb deal too….by comparison to what big rigs cost, and their huge investments.
(e.g. much as i like 24 track 2 inch the tape alone cost me a few hundred bucks.)

i'm just trying to fair to pg products. also no usb dongles.

time for a new generation to spread the message. lol.

to be clear i like not only rb but also biab and reaps.
i use the strengths of each.
however i'm not silly…of course if tomorrow a superior new multitrack product came out that combined all the best of bb/rb and reaps of course i would look at it.

what ive pondered many times is , why do certain pg users like joanne, rharv and myself (and others ) like rb soooo much. is there a commonality tween us ? and yet other people cant seem to get into rb. me..i'm a 'digger' so maybe there is a clue there.

what has really surprised me over the years is no competing products have come out for the pc and mac platforms that tightly integrate auto accompaniment/multitrack/session instruments etc etc.
if i could get above on a reasonable priced apple mac mini with a 'm' cpu running at 5ghz i would have to look at it.(eg a "super duper logic x version'.)

what i'm interested in also seeing is how apple engineers
deal with the 'laws of physics' as the performance of 'm'
cpu's speed is ramped ever higher. also 'heat' and power consumption. etc

whatever you use…just enjoy yourselves doing it like i do.

happiness to all.

om

I'm finding this thread very interesting and love the fact that no wars have been started.

As you know I use Studio One Pro as my DAW and very rarely use RB. HOWEVER I have always said that if you don't have a favorite DAW then start with RB.

A few messages back Jim listed a number of things that BiaB will do automatically. Many of those things are what I want to control thus I leave BiaB as soon as I can and go to my DAW.

Jim's comments got me thinking what are the primary sound sources people are using and how long do they stay in BiaB? Are those staying in BiaB primary RT users? Are those using primary MIDI leaving BiaB quicker? Or doesn't what you use as sound sources matter? I think that would be interesting data.

I will start. I am primary MIDI. I leave BiaB as a scratch pad, i.e get my chords and style and immediately move to my DAW. There I have total control.

PS - If you think this is off topic just let me know and I will delete this message.

99% real tracks.
Get out of Biab asap.
No biab plug in my daw.
Logic Pro.

This is not meant to be a nit, but there is another sound source that I (and I think others) frequently use. It's recording audio into a DAW (Studio One for me) from my keyboard or BeatBuddy drum machine. This is not MIDI and does not involve BiaB.

And just to show how much variety there is in BIAB users, mine is:

75% RealTracks (the real creativity is in the MIDI, though).
Stay in BIAB as long as possible.
No BIAB Plug-in needed but use the older DAW Mode to drag tracks into a DAW.
Studio One 5.

That is not a nit. I also use Studio One for things like that, i.e. keyboard, vocals, guitar, and bass recording. My point, that maybe I didn't explain properly, is how soon, if ever, do you leave BiaB.

I could never do in BiaB that I do in my DAW as quickly and easily as I can do it in my DAW. I'm sure it is the same with you. YMMV

When it comes to how soon I come out of BIAB it really depends on what I feel at the time usually pretty quickly. I may bounce back into BIAB to change an instrument or maybe go back and covert a track to MIDI so that I can edit it or use a different instrument. I might even go into RB particularly to get a few MultiRiff options on a bar or two. (Yes I know there are other ways to do it but I tend to stick to what works for me). I set everything to flat, dry and centre then export it and pull it into Reaper. I might add more instruments or write parts outside BIAB in my DAW.

In Reaper it is very easy to move stuff, (for example move a note by a number of ticks or maybe cut an paste entire bars) maybe do Spectral edits to get shy of noises I don’t want etc. As I mix I often notice things I want changed.

Once I have it I will change levels as a song progresses using envelopes. I might change play rates in a song or more likely at the end. Yep I could do that in BIAB but it is much easier and more accurate to perform rate changes using an envelope that I can see and adjust whilst listening to the track. (No calculations or guesses to percentages). Using envelopes it is easy to start change in any part of a bar.

Once I have the song roughly ho I want it I might put Neutron on every track (one click in Reaper). I then use a chain on my output (one click). This output chain has the Visual Mixer, Ozone, Tonal balance Control and Insight. In a nutshell it is simple and quite efficient.

I get back to saying the best tools for particular functions (yes what are the best tools is subjective but it is what I have).

I use mainly RealTracks because I consider them to be truly excellent in the main. I also have a vast collection of sampled instruments and many synths (which I very rarely use).

Tony

BIAB while I compose (though I sometimes use Scaler 2 in Logic for the composing stage as well or even Garage Band for iPad (especially for drum programming))
Logic Pro X for the rest, as I feel much more in control in the DAW with signal chain and processing (controlling Waves plugins through BIAB sucks!)
Then Ozone in stand alone mode when I master

Bottom line - you find the workflow that suits your needs best, and since we probably have different approaches on workflows, then one size doesn't fit all.

I listed a few tasks Band-in-a-Box automatically performs to illustrate there are benefits to using Band-in-a-Box users don't think about or overlooked. The majority of the tasks I listed can be somewhat repetitive in a DAW.

At least one person indicated a preference to manually perform one or more of these tasks. I can understand that. Most users responding in this thread are very experienced. If I had the ears, skill and experience some of you have I'd want to maintain them at that level.

But I'm not at that level. I don't REALLY want to put in the time and effort to get to that level; although sometimes I like to believe I do.

So far I haven't read much where someone says they use their DAW to do this or that because Band-in-a-Box can't do one of those things. The feedback seems to be more about using their DAW because of familiarity, comfort level or maintaining skills. Those reasons are as good as any but were any of them your first thought when you saw the title of this thread, "Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box"?

At a primary foundational level, I do not understand this thread.

BIAB generates tracks, and is wonderful to work with as a song track builder and backing track creator.

However, when you move to the point where you want to do some serious mixing, envelope creation, fading, coloring, addition of numerous track "pieces", and the application of VSTS to all those tracks and the busses, how can you skip the DAW??????

That is where the mixing and mastering takes place.

(Real Band is a gem in that it not only generates tracks but also is not bad as DAW. It is wonderful to see your tracks laid out and get the visual glimpse of how it is all coming together from top to bottom in Real Band. Need a mandolin in there for a few seconds?? Add one!)

But I always do the final stuff in Cakewalk, because of the ease of use with mixing, VSTS, and stuff like that.

So, I am not sure I get this thread.

BIAB and DAWS are too different animals. Apples and oranges.

David, I agree comparing Band-in-a-Box to any DAW is not fair to Band-in-a-Box or the DAW because it is an apple to orange comparison. Comparing the two was not my original intent. I tried to phrase the title question, "Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box?" in such a manner that responding forum members would not compare.

The thought that prompted me to ask the title question is: PG Music continues to add more and more DAW like functionality to Band-in-a-Box every year. At the same time forum users continue to render tracks flat, dry and centered to export the tracks to their DAW where the tracks are edited, mixed, processed and mastered.

Much, but not all, of that work can be done in Band-in-a-Box. Sometimes the work is easier in Band-in-a-Box. Then why not do the work in Band-in-a-Box?

As someone that has Band-in-a-Box, Cakewalk (software DAW), Audacity (software digital recorder and wave editor), (hardware DAW) I've challenged myself to stay inside Band-in-a-Box as much as possible. What I'm discovering is I can do almost everything in Band-in-a-Box that I can do with my other products.

I'm also discovering old habits are hard to break. It's easy to return to the other products because I'm comfortable using them for certain tasks. So I have to use Band-in-a-Box long enough to be comfortable using Band-in-a-Box.

There are some tasks Band-in-a-Box can't do or the steps to perform a task don't make sense to me but overall I'm finding Band-in-a-Box can do more than I thought.

One last thought if I may. Some of the users that posted in this thread have used software DAWs or midi sequencers for a long time. They have their DAW templates tuned to perfection, the skill to edit, mix and process tracks to achieve a unified sound. I'm not that person. My investment in time and money is Band-in-a-Box so the more I can do in Band-in-a-Box the more return on my investment I receive.

They're also two different fruits. Llamas and kangaroos <grin>

I post here to support PT/RB, which brought me into this fold, so yeah, I am biased.
I totally admit it.

I use other DAWs, but since this is the PG Forum, I try to support them.
As you said, RB is unique in that you can work in a DAW environment but still Generate.
I know the BiaB plugin allows doing that in other DAWs ..
Once I need to move on from RB, I'm fine with that, but I need reasons .. sometimes I don't need to move on at all
Mixing, VSTs etc seem to work OK for me in RB usually, and when they don't I move on .. but to get back to OP, producing a final product in BiaB; that's extremely rare here
/as in I'm not sure I ever have

it seems to me Jim that you have learnt every new wrinkle of BIAB as it has come out. time past it didn't do a lot of the things a DAW does so we all learnt how to supplement BIAB with a DAW (in my case RB).

so, why go back to BIAB to learn how to do things we already do quite happily outside BIAB?

nothing else produces a track that's almost right as quickly as BIAB but for my needs - creating the equivalent of a four or five piece folk or pop band - BIAB's basic functions are perfectly adequate without a lot that has been introduced to make BIAB more like a DAW.

like rharv i admit i'm a PT/RB advocate because i grew up with them. yes BIAB does a lot of things now, but i already have the tools I've used for a long time to do them so the steep learning curve of how to do the new things BIAB can do -is something I avoid

Bob/Rharv/other RB/PTW users etc..

i think frankly its time to change the product name of Powertracks.(PTW) maybe...
cos anyone thinking of buying it..and not aware what we mean by PT might think reading these forums we were talking about another well known industry product.
and thus PG might lose a sale perhaps.

maybe PG should have a contest for a new name for Powertracks.
how bout POWERDAW 23. meaning 2023 version then in 2024 version..POWERDAW 24.

anyhoo before originally getting biab/rb i started with PTW as a test as i was using also a 2 inch tape based studio at that time.,...and as PTW cost peanuts..and bcos i'm a maverick , and muso mates looked down their noses at PTW even tho' they had never tried PTW….
i thought why not …worst case i lose the cost of a cheap dinner out….lol.

well…to say i was impressed is an understatement...
compared to much more pricey products. particularly cos i ran it on a junk pc at the time as a test….sooo i sold off the 2 inch gear etc cos i was v fed up with tape and constant maintenance costs and powertracks gave me more tracks and i saved big time over using 2 inch gear.

THUS the move to RB was a natural progression i guess….many times i might 'do a ruff demo'
in RB like i used to do in PTW.

as i said upthread ..and no one commented…i'm very curious if there is a similar character trait tween us RB users ? eg Joanne/Rharv/Bob/David/moi and other users i'm not aware of. etc etc.
for example i'm a 'digger'. are you all the same ?
i would love to know...why some people take to RB like 'a duck to water' , but some dont.

now the above is not to knock biab. ive used it soo many times also for song development,
and its great so many features have been added.
i use biab all the time like RB.

and i'm excited what 2023 will bring to both biab and rb.


happiness.

om

To answer how can you skip the DAW BIAB requires defining the foundations of BIAB and DAWs. The two software program types entered music creation relatively close to each other. They're different but they share the same foundation, analog multi track recording. The oldest reference I've found where PG Music marketed BIAB as a Multi Track recording is back in the 2015 release of both PC and Mac versions. BIAB had audio elements prior to that year but that's when audio recording was introduced and the term multi track was used.

As each software program developed and progressed, DAWs advanced in track count, digital editing features, VST instruments, libraries and overwhelming quantity of gear emulation software, and mixer routing of a very complex nature.

BIAB developed and progressed improving and adding RealTracks, UserTracks, Styles, upgrading and improving the BIAB algorithm, stability, the elastique stretch and pitch component and upgraded and improved processes and features effecting the multi track emulation of BIAB. BIAB is a very robust and capable digital multi track recorder that's on par more with stand alone digital multi track recorders than it is today's modern DAW. But, the same as a stand alone recorder, BIAB is capable of producing a full production without using a DAW.

Modern digital technology has made it that audio degradation has been eliminated from multi track processes like bouncing and sub mixing down multiple tracks that are used to increase the number of tracks available over the unit's physical track limitation. Prior to the introduction of the 16 additional Utility Tracks, it was assumed BIAB was limited to 8 channel inputs and tracks and if a song production needed more than these 8 channels, then tracks had to be exported and the project completed in a DAW. This has never been the case. Applying well established multi track recorder techniques and processes like assigning groups, aux sends/returns and bouncing, channel and track count had not been a recording project issue for decades. Early Beatles recordings made on 3 and 4 track machines routinely had a final mix of 14-16 tracks. Doubled harmonies, added percussions, guitars and vocals doubled, strings, piano, harmonica could all be in a final Beatle song recorded on a 4 track.

These same principles, techniques, processes, features and tools have been available for use in BIAB all along.

Because BIAB is capable of producing an arrangement of 24, 48 or more tracks in a first generation recording with no audio degradation, a recording that's panned, audio balanced and processed with digital Fx's, it's possible to 'skip' a DAW if one wants to.

But Jim,

There is NO WAY on God's Green earth to do 1/1000 of what I can do to a .wav, or 20 tracks of .wavs inside of a DAW like Cakewalk in BIAB.

I can get the basic tracks generated, but I don't WANT BIAB effects or panning. I want my OWN, out of a list of 1,000 VSTS I have. I maybe use 40 VSTS on 10 drum channels alone.

Then I export a mixed drum track.

THEN, boy that is where the real stuff begins and there is a LOT of fiddling and fading, and knob adjusting on rack mounts to get the exact sound I want.

So, yeah I love the heck out of BIAB for those real tracks (and midi) but there is no way to create the real artisanship of mixing inside BIAB unless BIAB becomes a full on DAW, which would be pointless. There already is Real Band which is great for track visualization AND generation.

There is a thread going on about "Tonnetz charts" in another area (woodshedding I think), and if you look at the website (https://www.songwriter.studio/) almost all of the lessons hint at an architectural methodology for "energy flow" that might best be created in Real Band! Chord by chord and track by track, section by section.

I will forever see track "generation" and track "management" (as one part of arrangement) as two different things.

Band-in-a-Box gives you an arrangement of sorts, but if you are making a real song, the best you can get is to the fifty yard line.

You still have a long way to go after you have those basic tracks in mind, and even if you use the pink dot dot dots.

That's my rant.

For me the answer is not a knock on BIAB but in a nutshell LOOPS LOOPS LOOPS :-) I Gotta agree with Dave on this one. In all fairness I can only use BIAB as a tool. With all my vocal layering. singing 4 part harmonies, and creating a ton of vocal adlibs (just to name a few things) no way can I do this "EFFECTIVELY" in BIAB. Plus mainly I use a LOT OF LOOPS !! No way can I create my loop compositions in BIAB satisfactorily. This loop based creation is so far from a BIAB composition that it cannot come close to comparing. https://youtu.be/MMrw48cl26Q

Knock-out sound Henry. Clearly a big effort went into this arrangement, and sure it's absolutely reasonable to understand that BiaB wasn't ever designed to deliver that level of production 'out of the box'. What BiaB does, it does extremely well, but what you've done is at another level.

ALL.

i feel i must agree with david's and henry's comments re daw usage.

in my case i do a lot of detailed vocal work in reaps….. multiple voc tests, v low level micro edits comps etc etc.
its one of the reasons i like reaps. otoh i dont use autotune because i feel vocs by their nature should be natural. i know autotune is the current rage…but not for moi..also i remind myself zillions of grrreat tunes were done before autotune. and if i screw up a voc its my own fault.

anyway reaps has a 'poor mans' tuning feature available which lets me fix the odd vocal note.
but the main thing is the ease i can zoom in and do micro edits..and do subtle stuff like slow down a song and solo a trak in order to make it easier to do a micro edit.
also reaps has 'spectral editing'…but ive not needed it yet.

basically i use biab and rb often for getting down 'the song foundation/bed traks'..
and the reaps and rb for what i might say is the 'iceing on the song cake'.

as teunis aptly said 'use the right tool for the job'.

which is why i use bb AND rb AND reaps to do a song.
(note i really really like the mp3 maker in rb for some reason i cant put my finger on.)

I REALLY LIKE IN RB THE ABILITY TO RIGHT CLIK OVER A TRAK AND HAVE SOOO MANY DIFFERENT GENERATION//trak creation OPTIONS,...eg clik traks//audio traks//midi traks etc etc. very very flexible. things other daws dont do.

i often wonder if new users really explore the trak right clik LOOOONG lol menu trick in rb.
there all sorts of neat features to discover. yes i'm an unapologetic FAN of RB....and...
if my wishes in the wishlist came about with flac and other wishes etc, i would be over the moon..lol.

happiness to all.

om

< Originally Posted By: David Snyder
But Jim,

There is NO WAY on God's Green earth to do 1/1000 of what I can do to a .wav, or 20 tracks of .wavs inside of a DAW like Cakewalk in BIAB.

Band-in-a-Box gives you an arrangement of sorts, but if you are making a real song, the best you can get is to the fifty yard line.

You still have a long way to go after you have those basic tracks in mind, and even if you use the pink dot dot dots.

That's my rant. >

I think it's also fair to say:

<There's NO WAY on God's Green earth to do 1/1000 of what I can create as a single RealTrack WAV, or 20 tracks of RealTrack WAVs inside of a DAW like Cakewalk like I can in BIAB.>

Yes, "You still have a long way to go after you have those basic tracks in mind, and even if you use the pink dot dot dots." but the question posed for this thread, "Why Use A DAW When There Is Band-in-a-Box?" infers that "the pink dot dot dots" isn't as far as BIAB can go in developing a RealTrack or song arrangement. You guys are choosing to pull out of BIAB with basic tracks in hand at the fifty yard line when BIAB has not given you all it's got to give when it's at the fifty yard line.

How do you know you're at the 50 yard line if the goal post keeps moving?

I think most of us are saying we do it to be more efficient with our time.
That is hard to argue against. We know what we are efficient at and what we are not.

Sure I can drive a screw in with a screwdriver by hand, but I can also grab the drill with the right tip and do it 10X faster with less effort.
Doesn't mean the screwdriver is no good.

You asked 'why' and a lot of have given the same reason; it's faster for us, which makes it better.

Who gives a rodent's rump how a song is produced?

I have never heard anyone say "that song was recorded with, insert DAW, BiaB, Toontrack, or any program of your choice". With some sound sources (RTs, Kontakt, Sampletank, etc) yes but not the process.

We all have our own workflows. We can share them and if others benefit fine, if not also fine.

Lets not let this become a battle between in-depth BiaB users and in-depth DAW users. Each have their pluses and minuses.

Exactly.

This just shows me how far I have to go.
10 drum channels? I struggle with 7 channels total in my songs !

And VSTs? If I happen to have any (that came bundled with BiaB or S1), I wouldn't know how to use them.

Signed,
A Hopeless Forever Newbie

The journey will be a lot of fun though. We all have lots to learn.
Otherwise it would get boring real fast.

/FWIW, we usually pre-mix drums down to 6-8 channels here, but 10 does not seem excessive. /

40 FX on 10 tracks seems a bit much, considering sub-mixes allow sharing some FX, but I am not criticizing anyone. Do what works.

Most important; have fun, learn as you go. We all did that.
Do it at your own speed.
I would also suggest learning about VSTs, they can make a huge difference.

Thanks rharv, it has been and is fun and very far from boring. And BiaB is a big part of that.

We should establish a "PG Music Appreciation Day" where once a year, we express what this company has meant to us in a giant multi-page thread.

Yeah, that could turn epic
Many things I have done I couldn't have done in BiaB alone, but I couldn't have done without BiaB either.

I do truly appreciate PGMusic and wouldn't be shy to share

I started using Logic Pro X and Garageband before I started using BIAB, and this was the workflow I got comfortable with, and where I feel free to be creative with whatever I want to do. Though having DAW'ish functionality, I use BIAB for composition and RTs only which in fact is quite a big deal in my songwriting, performing and production.

I have a single question for you about this - if you're happy using BIAB and it works for you in every possible way, why did you open this discussion in the first place - is it because you're missing anything, that your fellow users could point out, is found in a DAW? (in such case - let us know what you're missing)

before BIAB could record audio i was using PT to record. is it any wonder that the workflow i established then is the one i feel most comfortable with?

BIA B's DAW like attributes came too late for me. my workflow had already left it behind.

I have to disagree Audio, or at least say I am confused. I don't think BIAB was ever designed to make anything "out of the Box." It gives you tracks to work with, but you have to do something with them, like any producer. You don't just have a bunch of guys (or ladies) play some parts and then say: "That's it y'all. We're done. We can press our record now."

NO--what you start doing now is the hard part, mixing and mastering.

What Henry does is phenomenal, I agree on that part, but I work in genres of pop, house, rock and even alt-country where I think the stuff I am doing will stand up to anything coming out of a studio. The new stuff in recent editions of BIAB IS the next level.

I think I have proved it numerous times.

SO, I can get some fabulous tracks from BIAB, which has many other neat COMPOSING and EDUCATION tools, but mixing and mastering is not its forte.

For that you need a DAW, pure and simple.

All I can say about the quality of BIAB though--as TRACKS--is this:

If you say you can't use BIAB tracks to create a professional sounding recording (or full length album for that matter) you had to have been hit on the head with a pipe at some point.

There ARE pros on this forum doing just that, but they won't tell you who they are and they are reading all of this.

And laughing their heads off I am sure.

BIAB is the professional producer's best kept secret and everyone knows it.

The only people who keep talking of "limitations" and such are the same people who simply cannot write a song to save their lives.

A real songwriter will write a hit song on a cardboard box if there is nothing else available.

We use neither a DAW nor Real Band. Just BIAB. My recording process is somewhere between archaic and Neanderthal. But I like the sound I get. And that's what matters. I don't even use a mixing board. Everything I do is straight of the BIAB chord input page to Audacity to Soundcloud. We use the guitar amp for my guitar tracks and as a powered mixer for the vocals.


My process:

Create backing tracks in BIAB. Save as a WAV file in Audacity. All I do in Audacity is a bit of compression and minor EQ adjustments.

For vocals I use an AT 2035 condenser mic. I run the mic straight into my Peavey Nashville 112 guitar amp. We record with reverb already on the amp (rather than dry) and set the vocal and guitar EQ with just the Low - Mid - High - Presence knobs. We adjust the the vocal/guitar volume with the main volume and and gain knobs.

We send the vocal or guitar to Audacity from the amp's headphone jack straight into the PC's mic input with Audacity running on the PC. We do a little touch-up on the vocal in Audacity and save it as a WAV file. We then mix the backing tracks and the vocal/guitar track in Audacity and save it as another (final) WAV file. We upload that to Soundcloud and a few other places. we're done!

I do all my backing track editing on the BIAB chord input page. I use the included BIAB VSTs as needed.

Here are two examples of totally different songs. One is a Boss Nova with my wife on vocals and the other is a really weird psychedelic guitar instrumental. I think they are good examples of the variety of sounds we can get from this method using BIAB. Both of these songs were created and recorded exactly as described above. We use no third party tools other than Audacity - no external loops, VSTs or tracks. Just BIAB plus our vocals or my guitar track. I often get nice comments on the mixing and over-all sound.

1. You (Bossa Nova with my wife on vocals): https://soundcloud.com/alananddi/you-remix

2. Beyond the Ozone - Into the No Parking Zone (Psychedelic Instrumental): https://soundcloud.com/alananddi/beyond-the-ozone-into-the-no-parking-zone

Hope this contributed something worthwhile to the discussion.

Alan


PS:: The lead guitar on the psychedelic track was all BIAB - no outside tools whatsoever.

In all due respect Alan aren't you are using Audacity as a DAW?

At the end of day Mario, people can do whatever they want.

I could say:

"Hey I have an old Yamaha 200 keyboard with some cheesy disco demos and I just pump straight out of there to my computer sound hole and then add some tracks in Audacity of me yelling over top of it into my phone."

OK.

What would Andy Warhol say??

Art???

I guess.

Everybody has their own way.

If it sounds good to you and you think you are an artist I guess that's all that counts.

BUT, when I discuss mixing and mastering with people it is usually about a mixing session done with a DAW and a studio board or a DAW and computer.

But that's just me.

I know plenty of people who are doing quite fine in Nashville and their only recording tool is a phone.

Seriously.

Well, I didn't ask the question because Band-in-a-Box works for me in every possible way. I thought I implied as much in my initial post where I listed multiple automation functions that my DAW of choice, Cakewalk, can playback at one time.

The original reason I asked the titled question is because I thought the responses would be along the line of what features DAW users miss in Band-in-a-Box and would like to have in Band-in-a-Box.

The responses so far are not what I expected. I thought the discussion would be about added functionality that would enhance Band-in-a-Box in a manner that DAW users would stay in Band-in-a-Box longer. Something like: "I can use my big money surface controller in my DAW but can't in Band-in-a-Box" or "My DAW has more automation functions than Band-in-a-Box".

Perhaps but I don't know. I'm thinking that in terms of shared, common DAW functions Band-in-a-Box can likely perform it. While every DAW shares some common functionality each DAW also has strengths that make it unique from other DAWs. I wouldn't want the discussion to veer into a discussion of specific DAW strengths while overlooking some common function most DAWs share while Band-in-a-Box does not.

If the discussion is what I use or do in a DAW that I can’t or don’t know how to do in BIAB it is mainly about envelopes. Yes it is possible to go into F5 and make volume changes and/or drop tracks etc. I find simply drawing an envelope far smoother and simpler. Using envelopes I can start a change in any part of a bar.

It is also possible to move the timing using the stretch capabilities I have in a DAW.

Spectral editing is something I use a lot sure I may be able to add RX into BIAB but most likely not the features I want but then again in a DAW it is far simpler.

Adding different instruments and adjusting MIDI. Yep once again it is possible in BIAB but to me far simpler in Reaper or Cakewalk. Adding an orchestra such as VSL for example. I would not even attempt it in BAIB (there are many many MIDI CCs and Key Switches that need to be managed.)

Setting the overall LUFS levels of a song.

Above is just a few tasks that I find easier in a DAW. The list is by no means complete.

I do not consider any of the above to be a failing in BIAB. I just think BIAB is a different tool. In some cases I might use BIAB to generate the rough MIDI and add the extras. Sometimes I might write the entire section in a DAW.

Just some thoughts. As has been said “horses for courses”.

Keep well

Tony

I sincerely hope PGM does NOT read a thread like this and decide to try to put more DAW features into BIAB!

Modern DAWs are generally feature-rich and stable in both GUI and functionality. Trying to compete with those products by adding DAW features would only water down BIAB unnecessarily.

BIAB does what it does (RealTracks!) so incredibly brilliantly! There is nothing else on the market that can compare (although Toontrack is getting close with their EZ products and pattern libraries.)

Please, please, no additional DAW features for BIAB (but it would be nice if those utility tracks were 100% functional!)

I agree

+100000000000000000000000000000000000

I've been refraining from comment, but I've finally cracked.
I also agree.
"Horses for courses" as the UK expression goes.

If I want to drive on the Autobahn, I'd like a nice sports-car in which to do it.
If I want to plough/plow a field, I'd like a nice tractor in which to do it.
I don't need a power take-off in the sports-car.

I think John summed it up nicely.



The ease of working in a full featured DAW is priceless. Both BB & RB have a unique thing that no DAW can easily do.... but for working with audio, it needs to be a DAW. Yes RB is technically a DAW and BB seems to be adding tracks but it's about the features and ease of use and unfortunately PG still has a ways to go to catch up to the DAWs currently widely used.